Yes, I'd support the notion of going through the entire core curriculum first. Regardless of how much you're actually able to study or not. The key to the LSAT is being able to apply the logical concepts that are taught in the core curriculum. If you jump straight into PTing, you're potentially wasting a finite resource and likely limiting you ability to learn the concepts.

With only one hour a day, you'll certainly want to make sure you're deliberately studying without distraction. You may find that when you have grasped a concept to your liking you can skip the practice problems and move to the next section. This also brings up another variable to establish: what's your goal score on the LSAT?

This can help you prioritize where you spend the most of your limited time, how you approach the test questions (i.e., which ones to skip, spend more time, etc.), and when you're ready to take the actual test.

Well done and thanks for taking the time to share.

I got to the right answer with a different answer choice analysis, so I thought I'd share.

The passage translation: a survey taken from two different sources over the past decade has confirmed a two to one difference between moving out and moving in. The upcoming census, which counts everyone living in the city, will reflect a population decline consistent with the two sources' data over the past decade.

Assumptions to avoid (ID-ing these helps me stay objective): the census and the two sources are the same.

(A) Within the past decade many people both moved into the city and also moved out of it.

- Restatement of information already shared in the passage.

(B) Over the past century any census of Weston showing a population loss was followed ten years later by a census showing a population gain.

- Provides irrelevant information about a trend in Weston censuses.

(C) Many people moving into Weston failed to notify either the post office or the driver's license bureau that they had moved to the city.

- Assumption bait. It doesn't matter whether the people have or have not registered with the two sources because the census is an entirely different information gathering process.

(D) Most adults moving out of Weston were parents who had children living with them, whereas most adults remaining in or moving into the city were older people who lived alone.

- Reasonable assumptions, the parents moved out in pairs and the adults moving in are solo. Therefore giving us a reasonable two to one confirmation that the census will be able to identify.

(E) Most people moving out of Weston were young adults who were hoping to begin a career elsewhere, whereas most adults remaining in or moving into the city had long-standing jobs in the city.

- Provides irrelevant information about a singular demographic that the census will cover.

Essentially, (B) says, that it's necessary that there was a chance of a change in oil reserves. Which makes sense because if there wasn't a chance, then the argument falls apart.

If you're not identifying the parts of the argument correctly, you'll likely benefit from reflecting on why you initially incorrectly identified the argument parts. During this reflection, take specific notes and then identify any trends. After you've been able to identify the trends, develop a strategy that reminds you to avoid making the same mistakes. The key is to take specific notes about your own thought process. Even taking notes about your thought process while actively reading the stimulus can be beneficial. I would suggest doing all of this untimed until you've developed a working strategy that shows improvement in your ability and understanding of how to identify premises, conclusion, context, and other miscellaneous information

Both "the Loophole" and "CC" provide a framework of understanding. Like, Constantine alludes, however, the key to successful implementation of either or both resources is to customize the framework to your specific way of processing and applying. The key with LR, and likely LG and RC, is to develop your own strategies. Recognize the resources, such as "the Loophole" and "CC," as basic structures with centralized and broad concepts that you need to customize and build around based on your individual strengths, weaknesses, and understanding.

When you BR, are you reviewing every question or only the questions that you've flagged during the timed attempt?

If you're reviewing every question, you may be losing valuable data about the degree of confidence (over or under) per a specific question type. Try only reviewing the questions that you've marker during the timed attempt.

What do the analytics say about the most frequently missed question type? Prioritizing your studies to reflect weaknesses in a hierarchy of most to least can help you with speeding up your approach, understanding, and answer choice selection.

Lastly, are the specific question types that you're sinking too much time into that are disabling your ability to get other questions correct? Example, if you're spending three minutes on all flaw questions and there are on average 7 flaw questions per LR section, that's 21 minutes out of the allotted 35 minutes. If you skip all 7 flaw questions initially, you'll likely gain quite a bit of time to answer other question types that you're more proficient.

The stimulus tells us why Salmonella is bad and likely needs a replacement test: it's a potentially fatal illness and the current tests are slow and don't identify all of the strains...

Note: we're told the tests are slow, but sans comparison, so unless we're given a comparison this is probably just wasted information.

...the new tests takes care of all the strains.

Conclusion: Because the new tests identifies all of the strains, the new test should replace all of the other tests.

Stem: Weaken

Pre-phrase: The new test is exorbitantly expensive, the new test takes an extremely skilled person to use of which are in very limited supply, the new test is slower than the old test, unusual strains don't impact humans, etc

Answer Choice Analysis:

(A) So, this function of the new test doesn't provide us any strengths or weaknesses. Keep in mind, too, that we aren't given any information that the old tests do or don't do this either. Essentially, this becomes a moot point.

(B) A tricky, but correct answer choice. If the new test indicates that Salmonella is present in all quantities, the food identified would be determined a risks; however, that would be an inaccuracy because the quantity is too low to pose a risk. Therefore, the new test risks providing information that isn't accurate to addressing the supplied concerns.

(C) Standard wrong a/c: context about salmonella not applicable to the new test.

(D) Standard wrong a/c: context about new test. Needs an assumption that hasn't been supplied such as, recent advances are proven or accurate.

(E) Standard wrong a/c: context about Salmonella. It doesn't address anything about the tests discussed.

Admin Note: Deleted the stimulus because it is against our Forum Rules to post the LSAT questions or Answer Choices on the forum

Conclusion:

The policy of nuclear deterrence is the sole explanation of why major powers have not used nuclear armaments (weapons) and there hasn't been a WWIII.

Why?

Premise a: Nuclear weapons have been in existence since WWII.

Premise b: Major powers recognize that a worldwide nuclear war would position the world in an unusable state (uninhabitable).

Premise c: WWIII between superpowers (major powers) hasn't happened.

Assumptions:

If there was a WWIII, nuclear weapons would be used.

The policy is the sole explanation, not the fear of an unusable world.

Pre-phrase:

There may be other explanations than the policy of nuclear deterrence that influence either exclusively or in co-incidence.

Notes:

The argument supplies us with two possible (Premise b and Conclusion) explanations but concludes that one of them (Conclusion) is the reason without giving any evidence that there are not alternate explanations.

Answer choice analysis:

(A) Incorrect because the passage doesn't provide us with any information about how nuclear weapons contribute to an economy. If we accept this as relating to something not mentioned (flaw) in the argument, we still need to make several outside the passage assumptions to get us there. None of which are provided.

(B) This could be true or false. We don't know. Equally, the passage only provides us with a claim that the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked up until this point. This answer choice goes beyond the present.

(C) We aren't given any knowledge in the passage about the requirements of the policy of nuclear deterrence. This claim seems true, but it could also be false.

(D) This answer choice provides us context and likely supports the argument.

(E) Points out that with the evidence provided in the argument the premises leave the door open for alternate explanations.

Admin Note: Deleted the stimulus because it is against our Forum Rules to post the LSAT questions or Answer Choices on the forum

This may sound blasé, but getting a score is the best way to get feedback on what you'll need to prioritize over the next four months. Without focusing on your weaknesses during your studies, you can't improve them. If you don't PT, it's extremely difficult to accurately identify your weaknesses. So, hopefully, before you take your PT you can change your mindset about what a score means. A score is simply feedback that allows you to effectively target your weaknesses and improve.

I would be curious of an example that you find to be a subjective main point, just for clarity. As far as a general recommendation, ensuring that you are able to comprehensively breakdown the passage as a whole into argument parts and each paragraph into argument parts will help ensure that you're aware of what is being presented in the passage that the author wants you know.

Continue improving your comprehension of what you're reading. Make notes on paper, untimed, about whose argument is whose, what is being argued, what are the premises, is there an argument, etc etc. Get comfortable translating what a paragraph says into your own words and understanding. Again, first on paper and then progress to only in memory or at least with only a few notes. The Atlantic is a good source for more dense reading that offers, in my opinion, grammar and sentence structure most similar to the LSAT. New York Times op-eds are great too. Really, anything that's making an argument about a subject.

My strategy was to take the Core Curriculum (CC) in full and then begin PTing. By doing this, I ensure that I have a basic knowledge or at least an awareness of what is being asked of me during the LSAT. After the PTs, I can look at the analytics and then go back to that section in the CC to refine my understanding. Because I've been exposed to each section previously by going through the CC in full, I've noticed that it makes me approach to reviewing more efficient and less daunting than being exposed to something I have no idea about.

For me, working a full-time 40+ hours per week job, successful LSAT studying is all about preparation and prioritization.

Each Saturday or Sunday I dedicate a large portion of my studying to preparing my materials for the upcoming week. Making list of things to review, new things that will be covered, how many hours I want to study in total and per day, and then I place those things on a dynamic calendar. Meaning, the only thing rigid on the calendar is my work schedule. The study time is floating even though it usually covers a specific quantity of hours of dedication. What I have found, however, is that a routine generally settles itself in and becomes rather repeatable each week. For instance, on most days during the work week I study from 7 AM to 9 AM; an hour over lunch; and then about two to three hours in the evening. There are days, when I study more and days that I study less. If on Tuesday I manage to study ten hours, I force myself to only study the morning session on Wednesday. If I fall behind one day, I see how much I can make up that week, but I don't force it. Studying is about quality, not quantity. I just work anything I didn't get to into the next week's plan.

Stated above: "Any: Drill questions from the reserved drilling pool mostly (PT 1-45) of any question type."

I just made a MSS and MP/MC Drill and it selected from PTs 42, 45,57,58, 72. Is there a way to ensure that the Auto Drill only selects from specific ranges of PT test?

I think that something that may help in determining "what went wrong" could be to journal in reflection about the two days before (or longer) and the day of the test. Perhaps looking at a personal recount of how you were feeling, what you did, and other events can help identify specifics about any differences from when you PT to the actual test. Were you more nervous, not nervous? How did you sleep? Any thing you did similarly or different?

Something that may help is to translate each sentence into your own words as you read. Think of it like a quick recap. This will help ensure that what you're reading is being comprehended and may also help provide a better understanding of the entire passage.

I'd suggest that at first you write each translation down. This allows you to compare each statement and will be particularly useful when you get the feedback of whether your answer is correct or not. As you progress into the habit of reading a sentence and translating it into your own understanding you'll be able to not write as much down, if any at all. Ideally, this will speed up your LR.

Another thing to consider is your overall understanding of the parts of the passage. Are you able to correctly identify each part (context, premises, and conclusion) and then with that information can you make accurate inferences? The more of a foundation that you have in understanding the structure of the passage the more time you'll be able to comprehend the passage.

The stimulus is making the claim that the statement that auto industry's revenues are decreasing isn't truthful. To back the claim that the statement isn't truthful, the stimulus provides us with statistics about the three components of the auto industry as a whole: manufacturers, suppliers, and services. The statistics provided are each of components share of the industry as a whole. Manufactures: declined to 50%, Suppliers increased 20%, and Services, increased 30%. What this information tells us is that there are only three components to the auto-industry as a whole. We know this because their shares of the auto-industry add up to 100%. If they added up to anything less, then we would be missing information regarding a component that makes up the auto-industry.

The Question Stem asks us which answer choice provides the reason why we can't use the provided information to support the initial claim.

Claim: The statement that the auto-industry revenue is in decline is not truthful.

Evidence: Currently, Manufacturers make up 50% of the auto-industry; Suppliers make up 20% of the auto-industry, and Services make up 30%

Answer Choice (D) attempts to tell us that the reason we can't use the evidence provided to support the claim is because Services (identified as dealers in the answer choice) are necessary for the revenues of the Manufacturers and Suppliers (identified as parts in the answer choice). - this provides us with information about how two out of the three auto-industry components earn revenue, but doesn't give us any information regarding why the breakdown of shares of each component can't be used to support the claim.

Answer Choice (B) indicates that regardless of the changes in revenue experienced in the auto-industry as a whole, the shares that each component makes up must equal to 100% of the auto-industry. - In essence, thanks for the breakdown of shares, but it tells us nothing about whether the revenue of the industry as a whole are in decline, stagnant, or increasing. We would need statistics on revenue change and a time period to make a determination. Per example, if auto-industry revenue as a whole is declining over a three year period we would need statistics showing that over the course of three years the revenue has been declining.